voh ౨ৎ 2025-04-19 05:03 p.m.Mx. @Brenda is misrepresenting flagrantly the law and the constituting instruments that create the City of Lander Police. Xe cites 3 MSC 2 §1206(c), which simply provides what a law enforcement agency within the State is. Operating under xer arguments, the Clark County Sheriffs Office would too be a state level law enforcement agency, as with the Township of Mersea Police. That doesen't make sense to me, for good reason.
Similarly, while it is inarguable that municipalities are indeed subdivisions of the State, that does not imply Mx. Popplewell's authority to represent them. Why would our framers distinguish from state, county, and municipal government if they did not intend for issues to be resolved and handled at state, county, and municipal levels?
As it stands, Mx. Popplewell has not cited a single instrument that would permit them to represent the City of Lander Police. While ze is without a doubt a fabulous attorney, we do not want xer representation or that of the Solicitor General's Office. The City of Lander Police, empowered as a "municipal law enforcement agency" (per 4 M.S.C. 8 § 1103) under the municipally created corporate entity of the City of Lander (per the Clark County Charter), has elected to retain it's own, in-house representation, which it should be entitled to do.
Most law enforcement agencies of the state are constituted by developer instrument. There is no explicit law making the Mersea Police Department exist or providing for the system of appointment of it's Chief, because it was created and the method of selection ordained by the Community Administrator. Similarly, the Commissioner of the City of Lander Police, while the lawful department head, is a developer occupying a developer-created position. The interests of both CA and of the law were to form the LCPD as a municipal agency, not a state one.